Comments from Scotland on politics, technology & all related matters (ie everything)/"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."Henry Louis Mencken....WARNING - THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAVE DECIDED THAT THIS BLOG IS LIKELY TO BE MISTAKEN FOR AN OFFICIAL PARTY SITE (no really, unanimous decision) I PROMISE IT ISN'T SO ENTER FREELY & OF YOUR OWN WILL

Friday, February 01, 2013

BBC Employees Please Note - Perjury Is An Imprisonable Offence

I have sent this letter to my local police.

Whatever one thinks of Tommy Sheriden, and I do, everybody lies about sex and at least some of what the NOTW said about him was untrue so he has some limited excuse for perjury. Helen Boaden has none.

In a country where the rule of law applies and justice is dispensed blindly, rather than at the whim of those politicians in charge, she will surely be imprisoned for significantly longer than Sheriden was (and probably a number of other beeboids too).

Frankly I do not expect that to happen but I will report what happens.

Dear Glasgow Central (Hillhead) Police,

I wish to report a crime of perjury - possibly a large number of other slightly less blatant cases in the same case & another deliberate breaking of the law which may well be criminal

In the attempt by the BBC to prevent an FoI enquiry about the identities of the "28 leading scientists" the BBC used to justify breaking their legal duty of "balance" in reporting on alleged catastrophic global warming it is clear that one person certainly perjured herself and possibly many other BBC employees may have done so.

"During the recent tribunal the director of BBC News, Helen Boaden, took the stand to declare that the 2006 secret panel was comprised of “scientists with contrasting views.” But as the list proves, all present were solidly in the alarmist camp" ("scientists" is also perjury since almost all of them weren't).

The statement by Helen Boaden, now reinstated after the Savile scandal, clearly cannot possibly be described as truthful and this, when testified to in court, makes it seem indisputable that she is personally guilty of perjury. It may well be that other BBC employees have also been so.

It also seems indisputable that the BBC had, for many years, breached the legal duty put on them by their Charter to report impartially & with "due balance" on alleged catastrophic global warming by lying censoring and suppression of dissenting views. The very fact that the entire BBC organisation felt the need to lie publicly and continuously for 6 years about the nature of the "best scientific advice" and the "28 leading scientists" - who turned out to be with 2-3 exceptions, not scientists at all, leading or otherwise, is strong evidence that the entire BBC organisation knew perfectly well that they were and had been lying. Having deliberately and continuously breached their Charter it is clear that the BBC as an organisation have been engaged in deliberate financial fraud, for at least the 6 years since they announced having held the meeting of alleged "leading scientists," in exercising an alleged right to licence money invalidated by their invalidation of their Charter.

Since the British state spent well over a million investigating and prosecuting Tommy Sheriden for perjury, in a case far more complicated and less clear cut and for which there were arguably more mitigating circumstances.

Since the case against her is clear cut I look forward to an early response saying either that Ms Boaden has been charged with perjury and will be prosecuted with equal determination to that used against Sheriden or if there is a compelling reason, consistent with the rule of law, for not doing so.

The case against the entire BBC may be more complicated, possibly even more complicated than that against Sheriden, though even the BBC are not disputing the facts or that they prove the entire organisation to be consistently completely corrupt.

I did originally make this report to the UK Attorney General's Office in London but they specifically directed me to yourselves.

Neil Craig

This is what I got (at the 2nd attempt) from the Attorney General's office. Who would have thought that not only do they not concern themselves with breaches of the law but they are unable even to pass on any information they receive?
Dear Mr Craig

Your local police authority will be able to advise you further on this issue.